IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Michael Shermer used to strongly feel that science should be defended in that forum, but after his debate with Kent Hovind he wrote:

Quote:

Then A Miracle Occurs...
An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young-Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith
by Michael Shermer
...
The problem is that this is not an intellectual exercise, it is an emotional drama. For scientists, the dramatis personae are evolutionists vs creationists, the former of whom have an impregnable fortress of evidence that converges on an unmistakable conclusion; for creationists, however, the evidence is irrelevant. This is a spiritual war, whose combatants are theists vs atheists, spiritualists vs secularists, Christians vs Satanists, godfearing capitalists vs godless communists, good vs evil. With stakes this high, and an audience so stacked, what chance does any scientist have in such a venue? Thus, I now believe it is a mistake for scientists to participate in such debates and I will not do another. Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable (evolution vs creation is not), with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion.

For good or ill, the late Stephen Jay Gould had a huge influence on American scientific culture, and on balance the good came out on top. His powerful voice will echo on for a long time. Although he and I disagreed about much, we shared much too, including a spellbound delight in the wonders of the natural world, and a passionate conviction that such wonders deserve nothing less than a purely natural explanation.

Another thing about which we agreed was our refusal to engage in public debates with creationists. Steve had even more reason than me to be irritated by them. They distorted the theory of punctuated equilibrium so that it appeared to support their preposterous (but astonishingly common) belief that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Gould's reply deserves to be widely known:
...
Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.
...
I hope that my recollection of Stephen Gould's wise words will encourage others to refuse all debating invitations from pseudoscientists avid for publicity. Quite a good plan, which I follow myself from time to time, is to recommend that the case for evolution could easily be entrusted to a local undergraduate majoring in biology. Alternatively, I plead a prior engagement: an important forthcoming debate against the Flat Earth Society.

I think scientists should do what they want but I agree with Gould. The debate looks far better on the creationist's resume than it does on the scientist's.

The problem a scientist runs into is that they must educate the audience on what evolution really is, show exactly why creationists are wrong and they must rebutt every BS statement the creationist makes . . . all in the allotted time.

A creationist simply has to make too many absurd statements for the scientist to rebutt. Even if half of their points are proven false, it is seen that the other half are correct when, in fact, the scientist just didn't have time to address them.

__________________"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

His webpage, "Biology verses Evolution," is on the CSU, LB server: http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/ with all kinds of lies, such as, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible." Note under Darwin's picture it says "Occult Art."

This issue is well beyond settled, so why debate it? It implies that there is still something to debate about. Scientists should dismiss requests for debates with "I don' t debate the flat earth, I don't debate the earth being the center of the universe, and for the same reasons I don't debate creationists. Now run along."

I see secular scientists claim they won't debate intelligent design and creationists and they give a pretty lame excuse that they will get "emotional discourse" instead of scientific ones.

I have seen debates between secular scientists and creationists. The secular scientists are the ones that get emotional and even try to invoke the bible though the subject is never brought up by either of these two groups.

I have yet to see a creationist's fundamental arguments every be addressed by the secularists. They always say "it just happens". That's anything but scientific or intelligent discourse.

Secularism is a religion that is emotionally defended. It is a faith and a religion just like all belief systems of thinking human beings. What is dishonest discourse is when it tries to distinguish itself from other belief systems. Only a brain that doesn't function has no beliefs no assumptions and lacks absolutes.

This issue is well beyond settled, so why debate it? It implies that there is still something to debate about. Scientists should dismiss requests for debates with "I don' t debate the flat earth, I don't debate the earth being the center of the universe, and for the same reasons I don't debate creationists. Now run along."

What makes you say the issue is settled? What are you trying to hide. A flat earth is testable. Evolution is not. Neither is creation. therefore you have to go back to the fundamentals of science and see which fits the picture.

To me, the refusal to debate is a sign of a weak and insecure position. What is there to hide that scientists so vociferously oppose debating?

The comes a point when cooler heads and common sense have to rise above overconfidence and mass ignorance or else we would still be blood letting trying to cure people or believing that flies come from rotting meat.

If the emperor does indeed have clothes on, they why are you secularists so afraid for others to see them?

I don't think so either. Dawkins' argument is very persuasive. Gayak, so is yours; I think it's a major problem with live debates. As to whether they (scientists) should go to the trouble of explaining the problems with cretinism on the 'Net, a la TalkOrigins, on the other hand, I give the opposite answer: yes, they should. That format does not suffer from the problem Gayak points out; and it doesn't result in publicity for cretinists that they would not otherwise get.

Above are posted some quotes of those who have debated creationists and claim it was spiritual or emotional, etc. I have never seen creationists or intelligent design theorists bring up religion or spirituality in a scientific debate. These subjects come up when a secularists get cornered in scientific argument and bring up "with desperation and great emotion" religion, spiritual things, biblical claims, etc. It is a smoke screen to hide their exposure in a blind faith that is not science but typically secularism.

But despite the claims of these secularists, these conclusions are for the audience to determine. NOT the debater. A man's testimony of himself is nothing. It does not matter if I say "I won the debate", it only matters if the audience says it. I interpret these responses as "phew! I am never getting back into that science grinder, that was embarrassing. Stay away from creationists and IDers because they will hang you with your own words!"

I have seen debates between secular scientists and creationists. The secular scientists are the ones that get emotional and even try to invoke the bible though the subject is never brought up by either of these two groups.

I have yet to see a creationist's fundamental arguments every be addressed by the secularists. They always say "it just happens". That's anything but scientific or intelligent discourse.

Secularism is a religion that is emotionally defended. It is a faith and a religion just like all belief systems of thinking human beings. What is dishonest discourse is when it tries to distinguish itself from other belief systems. Only a brain that doesn't function has no beliefs no assumptions and lacks absolutes.

That's my experience.

When you say that's your experience, you are either lying or deluded.
Can you provide just one example of a scientist, in a debate or anywhere, saying evolution 'just happens'?
Or an example of a scientist 'invoking the bible'?
Secularism is a religion? Do you know what 'secularism' means? Use an old fashioned dictionary rather than play fast and loose with the English language.

I have seen debates between secular scientists and creationists. The secular scientists are the ones that get emotional and even try to invoke the bible though the subject is never brought up by either of these two groups.

Why are you putting the word "secular" in front of "scientist" like that? Don't you know what it means? I would if I used it ten times in one post.

That's an exmple of the false dichotomy fallacy. (Either scientists would debate creationists or they have “something to hide.” A third possibility – that agreeing to debates gives creationism an undeserved veneer of credibility – is even mentioned in the original post.)

Objective? There is nothing objective about creationism and ID. It assumes god from the very beginning. Hardly objective.

That was originally posted to the guy that read the first three words and griped but I forget to include his quote.

Those debating a creationist by definition assume there is no god from the very beginning. You argument is specious.

Intelligent design was formed in an attempt to stop the evolutionists from escaping scientific argument by bringing up biblical references to bail out of trapped positions. Evolutionists tend to use dubious tactics like insults emotion and bringing up biblical references to divert attention to their trapped position. I can tell you have never attended a scientific debate between and IDer/creationist and an evolutionist.

That's an exmple of the false dichotomy fallacy. (Either scientists would debate creationists or they have “something to hide.” A third possibility – that agreeing to debates gives creationism an undeserved veneer of credibility – is even mentioned in the original post.)

Ironic statement since your bias that creationism is not credible prevents you from using objective scientific discourse to define what is or isn't credible. That is pure bigotry and about as illogical and unscientific a comment as you could make.

Ironic statement since your bias that creationism is not credible prevents you from using objective scientific discourse to define what is or isn't credible. That is pure bigotry and about as illogical and unscientific a comment as you could make.

Tu quoque fallacy (not to mention simply false.) Further, none of this has any bearing on the fact that you committed the false dichotomy fallacy.

It's a Sunday, and some guy just heard a positively awesome sermon or pre-service bible study rant about how evolution is wrong and secular scientists are violating Newton's Law. How some of the greatest scientists today KNOW that there was a creator of the universe. But these secular tools of the devil continue to lie, en masse, to our society. Because they are nothing but the worst kind of religious nut, and they are denying the word of god.

Can I hear a hallelujah?

And someone got so fired up, so filled with the spirit, they knew they were going to take this message to the free riding atheists and tell them to stick their science where the lord's sun (which the most renown scientists have confirmed just sits in a firmament over the flat earth) fails to shine.

Why are you putting the word "secular" in front of "scientist" like that? Don't you know what it means? I would if I used it ten times in one post.

rittjc replies:

Quote:

Easy! (too bad the other dude didn't beat you to the question).

By definition a creationist would not debate a creationist to determine whether there is an argument against creation. So logically all that is left is the secularist.

I am surprised you asked such a question. "In an A or B situation, if you are not A, you have to be B".

Michael Shermer:

Quote:

The problem is that this is not an intellectual exercise, it is an emotional drama. For scientists, the dramatis personae are evolutionists vs creationists, the former of whom have an impregnable fortress of evidence that converges on an unmistakable conclusion; for creationists, however, the evidence is irrelevant. This is a spiritual war, whose combatants are theists vs atheists, spiritualists vs secularists, Christians vs Satanists, godfearing capitalists vs godless communists, good vs evil. With stakes this high, and an audience so stacked, what chance does any scientist have in such a venue? Thus, I now believe it is a mistake for scientists to participate in such debates and I will not do another. Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable (evolution vs creation is not), with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion.

A virtual microcosm of the OP's point.

__________________"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

When you say that's your experience, you are either lying or deluded.
Can you provide just one example of a scientist, in a debate or anywhere, saying evolution 'just happens'?
Or an example of a scientist 'invoking the bible'?
Secularism is a religion? Do you know what 'secularism' means? Use an old fashioned dictionary rather than play fast and loose with the English language.

Secularism is a belief that can also be described as physcialism. In other words it rejects super natural (or meta physical) and believes that things can define themselves within by themselves. Worldly. The physical realm created the physical realm. Or as the "noted" scientist Dr Steven Hawking so "eloquently" said "The existence of matter is the result of a random fluctuation of 'nothingness'". For this he is lauded. First there was nothing. Then this thing that did not exist managed to "fluctuate". I am pretty sure that there is no aspect of science that allows the introduction of nothingness into an equation and then postulate that nothing takes actions in a spontaneous manner.

This is the culmination of secular beliefs have the "logical high ground" to push their dogma on society in our schools?

Those of you who are secularist and evolutionist who think you have some strong scientific undergirding will be surprised to find you do not. You merely have a belief that someone in someplace the truth lies and you can trust it though you have never seen it yourself. This is your belief system. This is a religion.

The opposite of Atheism is Theism (look at the greek). They are references to belief systems or religions. Not all religions are theistic. Some have blind faiths in UFOs, some have blind faith that the physical realm can cause itself to exist. Blind religion is blind religion. There is no amount of makeup that make that ugly girl look pretty. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

It's a Sunday, and some guy just heard a positively awesome sermon or pre-service bible study rant about how evolution is wrong and secular scientists are violating Newton's Law. How some of the greatest scientists today KNOW that there was a creator of the universe. But these secular tools of the devil continue to lie, en masse, to our society. Because they are nothing but the worst kind of religious nut, and they are denying the word of god.

Can I hear a hallelujah?

And someone got so fired up, so filled with the spirit, they knew they were going to take this message to the free riding atheists and tell them to stick their science where the lord's sun (which the most renown scientists have confirmed just sits in a firmament over the flat earth) fails to shine.

It's a Sunday, and some guy just heard a positively awesome sermon or pre-service bible study rant about how evolution is wrong and secular scientists are violating Newton's Law. How some of the greatest scientists today KNOW that there was a creator of the universe. But these secular tools of the devil continue to lie, en masse, to our society. Because they are nothing but the worst kind of religious nut, and they are denying the word of god.

Can I hear a hallelujah?

And someone got so fired up, so filled with the spirit, they knew they were going to take this message to the free riding atheists and tell them to stick their science where the lord's sun (which the most renown scientists have confirmed just sits in a firmament over the flat earth) fails to shine.

Oh, a Christian hater. Cool, for a second there I thought you were here to debate science.

I don't go church you bigot.

Good counter argument, insults! You atheists have so much scientific background. No wonder you don't want to debate science.

You are the perfect example of what evolutionists and atheists do in debates. Go to insults rather than try to make scientific counter argument. Try to discredit the opponent if you are helpless to counter him.

This is what I am talking about. This is why secularists, evolutionists, and atheists don't want objective disclosure of their position. They are completely vapid and this scream why it is time to start having national debates on the subject so the world can see and make up their own minds rather than having you atheists make it up for them.

Thank you for underscoring my point. I could not have made it any better.

This is the culmination of secular beliefs have the "logical high ground" to push their dogma on society in our schools?

You really and truly do not understand the basic science you are trying to discuss.

There are MOUNTAINS AND MOUNTAINS of evidence and research into this matter. What is your basic understanding of it? A few hot debating points you got from church?

But no, you just write it off as dogma, because you clearly know more than the vast majority of world scientists. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? To imply some kind of dogmatic, universal conspiracy to push an agenda? I hate to tell you, but nearly all scientists agenda is the search for truth throught the rigorous study and examination of the evidence we have available.

Can you name and describe any major scientific book you've read and actually understand?

Originally Posted by rittjc

Those of you who are secularist and evolutionist who think you have some strong scientific undergirding will be surprised to find you do not. You merely have a belief that someone in someplace the truth lies and you can trust it though you have never seen it yourself. This is your belief system. This is a religion.

You really are clueless, aren't you? Before I got my MBA, which was before I got my Psych degree, I wanted to go into astrophysics. I decided this was not a good path for me, but you are absolutely ignorant as to the amount of scientific study I have been exposed to. You have no idea what I have learned through observation, or have learned from scientists who do the work.

I mentioned the mountains of field specific evidence for current scientific positions. How much have you read? How indepth has your study been? Why don't you admit now that you're making sweeping statements that are simply your opinion? Otherwise, bring up any aspect of science you have studied and have a meaningful discussion in scientific terms. The scientists here will know if you're lying or not, so be careful.

You can chant that a belief in what we have solid, repeatable, and confirmed evidence for is religion all you want. It doesn't make it true. It just makes you look foolish.

Originally Posted by rittjc

The opposite of Atheism is Theism (look at the greek). They are references to belief systems or religions. Not all religions are theistic. Some have blind faiths in UFOs, some have blind faith that the physical realm can cause itself to exist. Blind religion is blind religion. There is no amount of makeup that make that ugly girl look pretty. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

I do not have blind faith. I have a well educated opinion.

Now, do you want to drop the whole superiority thing and actually discuss science, or what?

Secularism is a belief that can also be described as physcialism. In other words it rejects super natural (or meta physical) and believes that things can define themselves within by themselves. Worldly. The physical realm created the physical realm. Or as the "noted" scientist Dr Steven Hawking so "eloquently" said "The existence of matter is the result of a random fluctuation of 'nothingness'". For this he is lauded. First there was nothing. Then this thing that did not exist managed to "fluctuate". I am pretty sure that there is no aspect of science that allows the introduction of nothingness into an equation and then postulate that nothing takes actions in a spontaneous manner.

This is the culmination of secular beliefs have the "logical high ground" to push their dogma on society in our schools?

Those of you who are secularist and evolutionist who think you have some strong scientific undergirding will be surprised to find you do not. You merely have a belief that someone in someplace the truth lies and you can trust it though you have never seen it yourself. This is your belief system. This is a religion.

You were asked for an example of a scientist in a debate claiming that evolution “just happens.” You then provide an example of a creationist’s take on Steven Hawkin’s supposed claims about the nature of matter.